Real Whitby - A Community Website For You the Community

New Allegations: Robert Goodwill MP ‘Double-Dipping’

HOW HIS PROPERTY EMPIRE IS BEING FINANCED WITH TAXPAYERS’ MONEY – by Tim Hicks

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Readers will remember that, in 2000, whilst working as a Conservative MEP, Whitby and Scarborough MP Robert Goodwill sparked controversy when he was quoted as saying:

“I fly from Leeds/Bradford to Brussels and we get a set fee of around £500, but if I buy a cheaper ticket, economy class for about £160 and £250, I can pocket the difference and, as a capitalist, also as a British Conservative, I see it as a challenge to buy cheap tickets and make some profit on the system“.

Understandably, the Labour Party called this proof that “sleaze is alive and well” within the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party responded by condemning Mr Goodwill’s actions saying:

“The party does not endorse the fiddling of expenses or the impression given that the system should be made available for personal profit“.

One would have thought that this public rebuke would have been enough for Mr Goodwill and he might have learned his lesson. But in fact, it did not diminish his ardour for making personal profit at the taxpayer’s expense.

He has recently been criticised in the national and local press for abusing of his Parliamentary expenses again by a novel form of double-dipping, thereby disgracing his Party and his office of Assistant Whip with responsibility for Treasury and DEFRA business. Full story here:

Further investigation by Real Whitby investigative-journalists has revealed that, in fact, there is much worse afoot than this. Fresh and deeply disturbing information about Mr Goodwill’s property transactions can now be revealed.

Mr Goodwill, who received a taxpayer funded mortgage subsidy for his flat in London so thet he could carry out his duties as an MP, also has a substantial property portfolio managed by his own organization, “R W Goodwill Property Division”.

According to his Parliamentary Register of Interests, Mr Goodwill has betrayed the taxpayers trust by transferring the flat in London away from use in the service of his constituents, and to his personal commercial property management organisation, for use as a commercial rental property, along with other properties in his empire, for his own commercial gain.

Not content with obtaining income from a public asset, he has then gone on to double-dip by claiming £1,450per month in rent allowances through the Parliamentary Expenses Scheme. Obviously this is totally contrary to the values of the Conservative Party whom he represents and shows contempt for the Conservative Party Policy, as quoted above. It also shows contempt for the taxpayer and his own constituents.

Whilst I would emphasize that Mr Goodwill has not broken any laws, it should be remembered that he is not an Independent MP; he was elected to Parliament by his constituents on the Conservative Party platform and manifesto. This means that his constituents have a right to expect him to uphold the policies of the Conservative Party, for which they voted.

Clearly, he does not. He has deceived his electors to operate on his own agenda and manifesto – for private gain. In so doing, he has let down the other decent and responsible Conservatives, many of whom behave respectably and meet the standards of personal conduct that their Party and their voters expect – hardly good form for an Assistant Whip.

In his statement, Mr Goodwill claimed “as a capitalist, also as a British Conservative, I see it as a challenge to …. make some profit on the system” therebyequating the values of the Conservative Party with expenses fiddling. Former Prime Minister Edward Heath famously invented a term to describe people like Mr Goodwill; it was this:

“The unacceptable face of capitalism”.

In my view, Mr Goodwill quite obviously does not uphold Conservative values and has no place in the Conservative Party.

On the evidence of his own record of private profiteering, he has no place in public service at all.

I just don’t understand why this kind of behaviour i.e. taking money from the public purse above and beyound what you’re entitled to or need. is not seen as a crime. It is certainly using public office to make personal gains….but then that IS what the Tory party is about is it not?

I’ve said before that Jane Kenyon’s misdemeanours were encouraged by civil servants (agent provocateurs for the more enlightened) at NYCC to discredit her and the (her) office in order to prepare the way for a Brussels led Police Commissioner.

Robert Goodwill’s penchant for unwarranted expenses is shared by other MPs and as such exploited by civil servants again as in the previous expenses scandal.
All this in order to discredit the British system such that Brussels can claim the high ground. We are supposed to be disgusted that our Members of Parliament haven’t got the integrity of their counterparts in Italy, France, Spain, Greece etc.

On the subject of ‘double-dipping’, I see that the Whitby Gazette has run an article entitled “Councillors cleared of double-dipping”. How curious that the on-line version of the article bears a slightly different title – “Councillors cleared of double-dipping slur”.

The allegation that the Councillors have received far more than they actually spent on their Broadband has, in fact, been totally upheld. But, as NYCC’s Carole DUNN pre-determind, they were allegedly “entitled” to double-dip! No doubt in accordance with the Councils’ Constitutions which require them to secure best value for the tax-payers’ money. Don’t make me vomit.

And I continue to contend that double-dipping is morally absolutely unacceptable. In my view, acting in a way that is morally unacceptable DOES bring the Councillors and their Councils into disrepute – but the Councillors who sit in judgement on themselves disagree.

“Another issue which emerged out of this hearing was that a County Council official appears to have provided at least four of the eight members with a paragraph long statement which those members then used in response to the County Council’s own investigating officer’s inquiries. This would be like a detective providing you with the answer to his own questions, and clearly this has muddied the essential independence of the officer – councillor relationship. It is a matter which warrants further investigation.”

I’m not surprised that four of the eight members had to have their statements written for them by someone else, having seen the illiterate attempts to string a few words together, made by some of these people. I think that there should be some form of informal examination for candidates for election, to ensure that they have a minimum standard of literacy and numeracy.